Mustn't confuse difference between speculation and theory - I can speculate on what Shakespeare was trying to say in Hamlet but it's impossible to know for sure - I can demonstrate why I think the fat Dane was meant to mean a certain thing, but I can't prove it - and because I can't prove it the interpretation is open to rebuke, often intense rebuke if the interpretation seems extreme - but of course the rebuke itself can also not be proved.
I had no problem with D'Souza's speculative essay - I took it with a large grain of salt, as all speculation should be taken with some seasoning - but that doesn't mean there was nothing there worth chewing on. After all, the Obama presidency invites speculation - I doubt any president in our history was elected on such whimsical, fantastical terms - one could read ostensibly intelligent writers pontificating on how the simple act of America electing a black man as president was not only going to forever change this country for the better, but change the world - that's pure, unadulterated fantasy and yet supposedly serious people were treating this wild speculation as if it were indisputable reality.
So take D'Souza's essay for what it is - not veiled racism [although I can't prove that] but rather as a somewhat distorted reflection of the times and therefore not without its merits. After all, Obama did write a rather emotionally drawn book about an absent father, so... Hamlet, I am thy father's ghost...
